D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[Leatherhead]

Rogues and Fireballs aren't the only problems with granting extra out of turn actions. Consider a Warlock's Eldritch Blast , and all the problems that arise from both including or excluding it.

 

[Jester David]

What the warlord needs and how to make it happen.

I've been debating whether or not to reply to this. And how much to say.
But, at the end of the day, I don't self censor well and have limited restraint. Plus this is a topic I have some strong feelings toward, which tend to outweigh my better judgement.

So… how do we make it happen?

Because the warlord was introduced with 4e, so many criticisms of the class came hand-in-hand with shots against the edition (both warranted and wholly unwarranted). So many people still equate discussing or critiquing the warlord with edition warring and respond as such.
Much like how for a long time it was hard to discuss the magic item Christmas tree and assumed wealth without using 3e edition war language. Or quadratic wizards & linear fighters.
But to have any kind of warlord, there *needs* to be a discussion on it's strengths and weaknesses. We can't have an entirely pro-warlord discussion because then any problems the concept has don't get fixed. You can't make improvements.
That's not how design works. There needs to be a give/take.

Similarly, because the warlord is seen as so iconic of 4e, its absence is often seen as a shot by the designers against that edition. And so every element of the warlord needs to be included on principle. If the warlord doesn't do everything it did in 4e, then it's a failure.
Up to and including the name. It can't be a commander or marshal or captain or tactician or strategist (and forget about purple dragon knight and bannerette). Personally, "warlord" throws me off for a couple reasons. First, "warlord" is used in the real world, and tends to apply to pretty horrible people. Very literally among the worst people currently in the world. Throw it into Google News for an example. Second, implies a certain level of rank and status. It's like having the wizard class be called the "archmage" or the cleric the "high priest".

With the above in mind, what is needed to make the warlord happen, is for it to stop being an edition war flashpoint. Which likely won't happen this edition.
Maybe for 6e. When enough time has passed for the topic to be discussed without pitchforks, WotC can try bringing it back.

That said, let's get into common abilities.

1: Grant advantage to the next attack made by an ally (and the Warlord also attacks).

The catch is, everyone can do this.
A class feature where you can take the Help action as a bonus action and/or at range is certainly doable.

2: Give an ally a bonus "free" attack with extra damage.

It'd have to be a reaction, but also doable.
Extra damage isn't 100% necessary though. If you're granting an attack in place of your own, you're almost likely trading a lower damage attack for a higher damage one. That's already a bonus.

3: Grant bonuses (or advantage) to initiative checks.

This was one of my favourite passive warlord bonuses, as so few things muck with initiative.
Granting the warlord proficiency on initiative checks might be a simple tweak. Or half proficiency to the party.

A flat bonus isn't very useful though. It's just something you write down and then forget about. Despite coming up in every combat, it's not memorable.
Having an ability to allow characters to reroll initiative, making it more active, would be much more interesting, even if it only affected one person or was usable once a short rest. Ditto having an option allowing the warlord to shift a character's position in the initiative order. Fun and tactical.

4: Give an ally a "free" move (and the Warlord also attacks).

Less useful since exact positioning is less of a thing in 5e.
A limited use ability for off turn movement without provoking would be handy, to get people away from a creature they're base-to-base with. Good for squishies and ranged attackers.

5: Give an ally a save against an ongoing effect (and the Warlord also attacks).

Useful and very much in the wheelhouse of the 4e warlord. But it feels like one of those abilities that better fits the "leader" role and not the "tactical commander" concept.
It's a checkbox ability that feels less vital to the class concept and probably more at home at a healing subclass.
It could be a simple as also allowing the Help action to benefit a saving throw instead of an attack roll.

6: Use an interrupt to reduce damage to an ally.

As simple as adding a "aid AC" to the Help action. A "Hinder" action if you will.

7: Restore lost HP to an ally (and the Warlord also attacks).

The big debate point. Gulp. Here we go….

The issue is all warlord healed in 4e, but that was more a function of their class role rather than their class concept. In the same way marking isn't essential to the fighter or crowd control isn't essential to the wizard. You can make a character that does neither in 5e. Also, you don't expect the tactical genius to also work as the field medic. Those are two different archetypes. There's a finite number of options classes gain each level (and a very limited "hand size" for active powers). This list already includes almost a dozen powers. That's a lot. Getting them all at a reasonable rate would be tricky enough, so including healing as an assumed option likely means healing is coming at the expense of something unique to the warlord. It's losing a tactical option that would be distinct to the class in order to gain something a half dozen other classes can already do.

Really, there's only one class in the game with default healing options: the paladin. And that's a secondary healer at best. All other classes have to *choose* to heal. You can make a cleric or druid that never memorizes cure wounds. You can play a bard that literally does not know the spell. It seems odd to make the tactical warrior the only dedicated healer class in the game.

There's the giant elephant in the room of martial healing. Restoring real hit points versus temporary hit points. What hp represents. Etc. Which is the thread killer of a topic that has been hotly debated since OD&D. Gygax literally stuck his personal rant post on the topic into a 1e core rulebook.
Just to avoid the class dumping that debate onto tables, I think it's best not to have heavy warlord healing. Let them grant temporary hp at range and restore 1 hp at 5 feet. And allow people granted warlord temporary hp to get back up. That has the same function at the table (and allows you to "preheal" people).

8: Improve out-of-combat healing.

This feels too much like a bard ability. There's room for some sharing of class features (see Evasion and Unarmoured Defence) but it should be avoided if possible.
This should be the last ability on the "to add" list. If there's a soft level that needs a boost, add it in. If not, then leave it out.

9: Allow and ally to move and attack off-turn.

I think this was covered above.

10: Grant an ally a "free" attack with NO bonuses (and the Warlord also attacks).

This seems doable and in line with the power curve.
Instead of getting Extra Attack, when the warlord uses their "Grant Attack" ability (or whatever) they can also make an attack themselves.

11: Give an ally a bonus to damage on their next attack (and the Warlord also attacks).

It kinda works. But it's less interesting than granting an actual attack. And a little similar to bardic inspiration.

Do you agree with this list? If so, how could this be implemented in 5e? I am curious what peoples thoughts are on this.

Okay, my thoughts are complicated.

There is room for the warlord in the game. But there's room for lots of classes in the game. A shapeshifter, a shaman, a dedicated gish class (1/2 arcane), a summoner. My favourite example is, of course, the jester. But I don't want to see them all. We really don't need them all. New classes need to be chosen carefully. Maximum bang for the buck.
(The mystic/ psion is a good one because it's been in 3+ editions and brings in psionic spells that can also be added to other classes via subclasses. The artificer is also handy, especially if it can be merged with the alchemist. The more vastly different characters, archetypes, and roles can be filled by a new class, the stronger the case it should be added.)

The warlord in 4e also overlapped heavily with the bard. Both were often the charismatic leaders that buffed allies. There's already a lot of redundant classes in the game (paladin and ranger, I'm looking at you), so we really don't need more. The other classes get a pass because of legacy. Doubly so as the bard already overlaps with the arcane trickster.
To really work as it's own class the warlord needs to be distinct. Which means dropping the Charisma aspect of much of the class and focusing on Intelligence. Downplay the "inspiring" and double down on the "tactician and strategist".
But, as mentioned above, that's a change away from the 4e warlord, so such a class will be rejected by many warlord fans on sheer principle.

Thinking about the actual design, the best chassis for the warlord is probably still the cleric or the paladin. D8 Hit Dice, medium armour. Throw on martial weapons. Clerics get 3 cantrips and 2 daily spells. That's the class feature benchmark.
The cantrips are necessary as the clerics have no real offence, which isn't the case with our warlord. Those can mostly replaceable with a couple minor powers. Proficiency with initiative checks and the ability to grant an ally a bonus to initiative checks (or reroll) would also fit. And maybe the ability to restore 1hp to fallen allies or grant some temporary hit points.
Looking at the warlock, the 2 daily spells could also be reduced to a power equivalent to a spell that recharges on a short rest. That's our Grant Attack power right there.
From there you can divvy up abilities easily. Help as a bonus action at 2nd level, subclass at 3rd, ASI at 4th, attack after using Grant Attack at 5th, subclass ability at 6th, extra use of Grant Attack/ add movement to that ability at 7th, ASI at 8th, etc. The extra bonuses to the Help action (advantage to AC or a save) could be slipped in along the way. 7th level. Or maybe 5th.
The above covers everything except healing (which could be a subclass).
But it's not a particularly exciting class. It hits all the checkboxes, but doesn't break new ground or do anything amazing.


To me, the most interesting design happens not when you say "let's make a class that does exactly what it did in past editions" but instead ask "what should a character based on this concept be doing?" And then try to do something unique with the design and mechanics of the class. That's when interesting design happens. Like the hook of making the warlord a 1/2 or full manuever class (assuming the Battle Master is a 1/3rd manuever class in the same way the eldritch knight is a 1/3rd spellcaster).

I had some fun envisioning a tactician class that picked a handful of powers at the start of the day, when spells were memorized, each with their own triggers. Abilities that buffed the Ready action or taking a reaction. So rather than just granting an attack and *saying* the class is a master tactician and practiced with their teammate to find openings, the abilities actually reflected that and an opening being made.


But, again, this is a change.


How can a warlord happened?
Not easily, that's for sure.

Most 5e D&D players don't care. Seriously. More D&D players left during 4e than stuck around (judging by how Pathinder was outselling D&D despite having half the number of sales as 3.0 over more years). And there are more D&D players now than any time since the '80s. So right off the bat, >50% of players are unlikely to have strong warlord feelings. And even many 4e fans were likely apathetic to the warlord.
WotC has hard numbers for warlord players via the Compendium. They know who made a warlord and then levelled that warlord over time, reflecting play. They have a good idea of the ratio of warlord fans. And likely the people who made multiple warlords. They also have the surveys. Had both really shown strong interest in the warlord, we'd have seen one.

Buying and sharing the fan versions is one way. If there are several fan versions that sell *really* well on the DMsGuild, that will help get attention.
Raise awareness. Play or run a warlord in home games and then discussing those home games. Start a blog on your game or stream your game. Get others to play and talk about the warlord. Guest on podcasts and talk about the warlord. Go to conventions with the WotC and politely ask them about the warlord.
Getting Matthew Mercer to profess a love for the warlord wouldn't hurt…

 

[Jester David]

Reading this thread I have some suspicions about why there's no official Warlord class:

- The vocal proponents all have different notions of what it must be, and...
- Each seems to have zero tolerance for any deviation from their blueprint.

Any balanced version they published would please exactly one fan, and infuriate all the others.

Sadly, that's my general reaction to these threads as well....

 

[mellored]

By 5e philosophy, I mean things like:
1. Generally one buff/debuff per character taking up concentration.
2. Using reactions for things not happening on your turn so it's both an opportunity cost and a limiter how often it can be done.
3. Action economy degrades when passed on - it takes you more actions then you give to someone else, or it takes a limited resource.

All of those are fine, but none really stop a warlord from existing.

No reason a warlord buff couldn't take concentration. 3.5 martial has aura's that required you to be conscious, and limited you to 1 at a time (well 2, one of each). Call it a "stratagem" or something.
No reason a warlord action grant couldn't take someone's reaction. You don't want 4 warlords all granting attacks to 1 rogue.
No reason action economy couldn't degrade or be limited. Giving up your full action to grant 1 attack for instance. There are also already limits on most things, like spell slots, ki, ect... warlord can help when you use them, but not how often. And he should be doing something to carry his weight.

There's no question 4e warlord was OP and granted too much. It's not hard to tone it down, and don't grant the whole party a free attack with your bonus action. It doesn't mean you can't grant attacks at all.
Same as the 3.5 wizard was OP. Doesn't mean you can't have fireball in 5e, just not one with less damage.



And I found my Frankenstein warlord.
Each feature already exists.

1: Bardic Inspiration, Protection Fighting Style
2: PDK second wind, expertise persuasion
3: Combat Superiority
4: ABI
5: Font of Inspiration (bard)
6: Tactical Master (master mind rogue)
7: Multi-Attack.
8: ABI
9: Bardic Inspiration (d8), Combat superiority (d8)
10: Cutting Words (lore bard), Battle Inspiration (valor bard)
11: PDK action surge
12: ABI
13: Panache (swashbuckler)
14: Bardic inspiration, combat superiority (d10).
15: PDK indomitable (2x)
16: ABI
17: 2nd action surge.
18: Bardic Inspiration, combat superiority (d12).
19: ABI
20: Relentless, Superior Inspiration.


Not perfect, but defiantly in the ball park.

 

[mellored]

Rogues and Fireballs aren't the only problems with granting extra out of turn actions. Consider a Warlock's Eldritch Blast , and all the problems that arise from both including or excluding it.

I don't see an issue including it. Depending on what else the warlord can do.

But excluding invocations is easy enough if needed.


As far as rogues = grant the attack on their turn (same as haste).
As far as fireball = it still uses the wizards limited spell slots.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, I think that's the rub here. How much more is the best action worth than an average action? And how much better is it for the warlord to do it now, as opposed to waiting for the character who does have the ability to take that same action on their own turn?

And how much better would that action be, done on the character's turn, with a bonus from the warlord? How much better is it to have the warlord charge forward, make an attack, and give off turn movement to his allies, and/or a damage bonus to the next ally attack? Unless the enemy goes in between the warlord and the character in question, it is going vary depending on the situation at the table.

 

[Imaro]

I
Most 5e D&D players don't care. Seriously. More D&D players left during 4e than stuck around (judging by how Pathinder was outselling D&D despite having half the number of sales as 3.0 over more years). And there are more D&D players now than any time since the '80s. So right off the bat, >50% of players are unlikely to have strong warlord feelings. And even many 4e fans were likely apathetic to the warlord.
WotC has hard numbers for warlord players via the Compendium. They know who made a warlord and then levelled that warlord over time, reflecting play. They have a good idea of the ratio of warlord fans. And likely the people who made multiple warlords. They also have the surveys. Had both really shown strong interest in the warlord, we'd have seen one.

This, as opposed to being some kind of slight against 4e, sums up nicely why I believe the warlord as a new class has not been a priority for WotC.

 

[Paul Smart]

Jester David, that is exactly the type of reasoned, thoughtful analysis I was looking for in this thread. We all love D and D despite our different favorite editions. I like your emphasis on tactics and strategy as personally that is why I would want to play a Warlord type character, but I know people have different ideas and builds. Have some XP and well done.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I've been debating whether or not to reply to this. And how much to say.

(Snipping the rest to save space.)

Really great post. Informative, and level-headed.

I'll toss out there that I stopped playing D&D after 2nd Edition and came back during Next. When I found some forums the first thing I noticed was this raging debate about Warlords. I asked "What's a Warlord?"

So my opposition has nothing to do with hating 4e, and nothing to do with martial healing (which I'm fine with).

Here's why I loathe the Warlord:

1) The name. For all the usual reasons. (I'll get to the other options in a sec.)

2) The "leader" concept. I am just fundamentally opposed to one class being the leader. Proponents keep saying "He's not really the leader, that's just one of the roles from 4e and it really means 'support'." But I'm not buying it. First of all, descriptions of Warlord abilities are almost all "giving orders" or "inspiring" or "telling what to do". Things like, "Make a suggestion on how to better kill that orc." What? My fighter (you know, the melee combat specialist) of the same level as your Warlord needs to be told how to kill an orc? And now you're giving advice to the rogue, too? So you're also an expert at sneak attacks?

More evidence that a lot of people think that "leader" means more than combat role:

- In arguments about "martial healing" (which, again, I'm fine with and I don't think needs to be justified) the example of Patton screaming at a private is used as an example. Uh-huh. So your character is the general and mine is the private. Gotcha.

- In fact all the arguments for this sort of martial healing ("the One True Love who shows up at the dying man's bedside and inspires him to rise up and walk", etc.) rely, some how or another, on influence and interpersonal bonds. And that's what bothers me. An entire class based on the concept of my character looking up to your character. It would be like having a class called "Flirt" whose power derived from every other PC lusting after him/her. Sorry, but no: you don't get to define my character's emotions because of the class you chose.

- When asked 'what character from history or fiction is a Warlord' you hear that Aragorn was Warlord, not a Ranger. Conan was a warlord, not a barbarian. King Arthur was a warlord not a fighter. Odysseus was a warlord not an archer. Batman was a warlord not a...whatever the $#@% he is. Etc. See the pattern? The heroes are all warlords. Who represents the other classes? Sidekicks.

Groups do have leaders, of course, and I don't even mind there being mechanics to reinforce the idea. But it shouldn't be restricted to a class. Which is why I'm fine with sub-classes and feats and the like granting leader-like abilities.

3) Other naming:

Captain: No. See #2 above. (Likewise for all titles derived from military rank.)

Tactician: Non-offensive, but just awful. Besides, name a character from history or fiction who is a tactician? And by that, I mean, if you went up to a stranger on the street and said, "What was Batman?" they would say, "Oh, he was a tactician!"

See what I mean? If you accept (at least verbally, even if you don't really believe it) that this class concept isn't actually a leader, there's not really a coherent class concept left. There's a grab-bag of mechanics, sure, but not a class concept that can be described using any terminology that somebody who never played 4e would understand. (I still BARELY get it, and only believe that it adds a useful dimension to combat, and isn't just about nostalgia for OP-ness, because Bawylie attests to it and I think he's pretty sensible.)

 

[cbwjm]

I agree with twosix, and captainzap.

Granting spells is fine, because there are a limited number of spells slots. However, I also agree that you shouldn't be able to grant full barbarian multi-attacks, or off-turn rogue attacks. It also makes no sense for a warlord to grant a Rouge and extra hide check, or lock pick attempt.

Thus I would do it similar to haste. On their next turn, they get an extra action, and can do a small number of things (including casting 2 spells).

You already can do off-turn rogue attacks through the battlemaster's Commander's Strike or a level 10+ banneret that uses Action Surge. It does burn the rogue's reaction which might be a good limiting factor for extra actions granted by a warlord.